Taking One For the Team


More political science wonkery! Eric McGhee wants to know if Yes votes on health care reform, the economic stimulus, cap-and-trade, and TARP were bad for vulnerable House Democrats. As I noted yesterday, regressing this on the entire Democratic caucus isn’t very interesting, since the results are swamped by lots of members of Congress who voted Yes on all four but are in very safe seats and won reelection easily:

So I modeled Democratic vote share in contested House districts using this count of “yes” votes, plus campaign money in 2010 (from here and here) and each district’s House and presidential vote in 2008 as controls (here). The model also estimates whether the effect of roll call votes depended on the partisanship of the district, as captured by the 2008 presidential vote.

….What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.

….What might have happened if vulnerable Democrats hadn’t voted for any of the four bills?….The Democrats gain back 32 seats, enough to retain control of the House.

Now, McGhee isn’t saying vulnerable Dems shouldn’t have made these votes. In fact, he doesn’t even think it cost them their majority, because it turns out there are some other confounding factors. Read the full post for details. “But,” he says, “it seems safe to say that they had a big negative effect on Democratic performance, and they certainly didn’t help.”

Perhaps so. For now, though, treat it as just another data point. It’s probably going to take a while for the real answers to emerge from the data.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.